This commit resolves a bug where users are not auto approved based on
`SiteSetting.auto_approve_email_domains` when
`SiteSetting.must_approve_users` has been enabled.
This security fix affects sites which have `SiteSetting.must_approve_users`
enabled. There are intentional and unintentional cases where invited
users can be auto approved and are deemed to have skipped the staff approval process.
Instead of trying to reason about when auto-approval should happen, we have decided that
enabling the `must_approve_users` setting going forward will just mean that all new users
must be explicitly approved by a staff user in the review queue. The only case where users are auto
approved is when the `auto_approve_email_domains` site setting is used.
Co-authored-by: Alan Guo Xiang Tan <gxtan1990@gmail.com>
Previously we limited Discourse Connect provider to 1 secret per domain.
This made it pretty awkward to cycle secrets in environments where config
takes time to propagate
This change allows for the same domain to have multiple secrets
Also fixes internal implementation on DiscourseConnectProvider which was
not thread safe as it leaned on class variables to ferry data around
Co-authored-by: Alan Guo Xiang Tan <gxtan1990@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: David Taylor <david@taylorhq.com>
Discourse has the Discourse Connect Provider protocol that makes it possible to
use a Discourse instance as an identity provider for external sites. As a
natural extension to this protocol, this PR adds a new feature that makes it
possible to use Discourse as a 2FA provider as well as an identity provider.
The rationale for this change is that it's very difficult to implement 2FA
support in a website and if you have multiple websites that need to have 2FA,
it's unrealistic to build and maintain a separate 2FA implementation for each
one. But with this change, you can piggyback on Discourse to take care of all
the 2FA details for you for as many sites as you wish.
To use Discourse as a 2FA provider, you'll need to follow this guide:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/-/32974. It walks you through what you need to
implement on your end/site and how to configure your Discourse instance. Once
you're done, there is only one additional thing you need to do which is to
include `require_2fa=true` in the payload that you send to Discourse.
When Discourse sees `require_2fa=true`, it'll prompt the user to confirm their
2FA using whatever methods they've enabled (TOTP or security keys), and once
they confirm they'll be redirected back to the return URL you've configured and
the payload will contain `confirmed_2fa=true`. If the user has no 2FA methods
enabled however, the payload will not contain `confirmed_2fa`, but it will
contain `no_2fa_methods=true`.
You'll need to be careful to re-run all the security checks and ensure the user
can still access the resource on your site after they return from Discourse.
This is very important because there's nothing that guarantees the user that
will come back from Discourse after they confirm 2FA is the same user that
you've redirected to Discourse.
Internal ticket: t62183.
Since we give a 200 response for login errors, we should be checking
whether the error key exists in each case or not.
Some tests were broken, because they weren't checking.
This PR adds an extra description to the 2FA page when granting a user admin access. It also introduces a general system for adding customized descriptions that can be used by future actions.
(Follow-up to dd6ec65061)
It's very easy to forget to add `require 'rails_helper'` at the top of every core/plugin spec file, and omissions can cause some very confusing/sporadic errors.
By setting this flag in `.rspec`, we can remove the need for `require 'rails_helper'` entirely.
2FA support in Discourse was added and grown gradually over the years: we first
added support for TOTP for logins, then we implemented backup codes, and last
but not least, security keys. 2FA usage was initially limited to logging in,
but it has been expanded and we now require 2FA for risky actions such as
adding a new admin to the site.
As a result of this gradual growth of the 2FA system, technical debt has
accumulated to the point where it has become difficult to require 2FA for more
actions. We now have 5 different 2FA UI implementations and each one has to
support all 3 2FA methods (TOTP, backup codes, and security keys) which makes
it difficult to maintain a consistent UX for these different implementations.
Moreover, there is a lot of repeated logic in the server-side code behind these
5 UI implementations which hinders maintainability even more.
This commit is the first step towards repaying the technical debt: it builds a
system that centralizes as much as possible of the 2FA server-side logic and
UI. The 2 main components of this system are:
1. A dedicated page for 2FA with support for all 3 methods.
2. A reusable server-side class that centralizes the 2FA logic (the
`SecondFactor::AuthManager` class).
From a top-level view, the 2FA flow in this new system looks like this:
1. User initiates an action that requires 2FA;
2. Server is aware that 2FA is required for this action, so it redirects the
user to the 2FA page if the user has a 2FA method, otherwise the action is
performed.
3. User submits the 2FA form on the page;
4. Server validates the 2FA and if it's successful, the action is performed and
the user is redirected to the previous page.
A more technically-detailed explanation/documentation of the new system is
available as a comment at the top of the `lib/second_factor/auth_manager.rb`
file. Please note that the details are not set in stone and will likely change
in the future, so please don't use the system in your plugins yet.
Since this is a new system that needs to be tested, we've decided to migrate
only the 2FA for adding a new admin to the new system at this time (in this
commit). Our plan is to gradually migrate the remaining 2FA implementations to
the new system.
For screenshots of the 2FA page, see PR #15377 on GitHub.
When staff visits the user profile of another user, the `email` field
in the model is empty. In this case, staff cannot send the reset email
password because nothing is passed in the `login` field.
This commit changes the behavior for staff users to allow resetting
password by username instead.
The UI used to request a password reset by username when the user was
logged in. This did not work when hide_email_already_taken site setting
was enabled, which disables the lookup-by-username functionality.
This commit also introduces a check to ensure that the parameter is an
email when hide_email_already_taken is enabled as the single allowed
type is email (no usernames are allowed).
* FEATURE: hide_email_address_taken forces use of email in forgot password form
This strengthens this site setting which is meant to be used to harden sites
that are experiencing abuse on forgot password routes.
Previously we would only deny letting people know if forgot password worked on not
New change also bans usage of username for forgot password when enabled
This commit adds token_hash and scopes columns to email_tokens table.
token_hash is a replacement for the token column to avoid storing email
tokens in plaintext as it can pose a security risk. The new scope column
ensures that email tokens cannot be used to perform a different action
than the one intended.
To sum up, this commit:
* Adds token_hash and scope to email_tokens
* Reuses code that schedules critical_user_email
* Refactors EmailToken.confirm and EmailToken.atomic_confirm methods
* Periodically cleans old, unconfirmed or expired email tokens
Currently, Discourse rate limits all incoming requests by the IP address they
originate from regardless of the user making the request. This can be
frustrating if there are multiple users using Discourse simultaneously while
sharing the same IP address (e.g. employees in an office).
This commit implements a new feature to make Discourse apply rate limits by
user id rather than IP address for users at or higher than the configured trust
level (1 is the default).
For example, let's say a Discourse instance is configured to allow 200 requests
per minute per IP address, and we have 10 users at trust level 4 using
Discourse simultaneously from the same IP address. Before this feature, the 10
users could only make a total of 200 requests per minute before they got rate
limited. But with the new feature, each user is allowed to make 200 requests
per minute because the rate limits are applied on user id rather than the IP
address.
The minimum trust level for applying user-id-based rate limits can be
configured by the `skip_per_ip_rate_limit_trust_level` global setting. The
default is 1, but it can be changed by either adding the
`DISCOURSE_SKIP_PER_IP_RATE_LIMIT_TRUST_LEVEL` environment variable with the
desired value to your `app.yml`, or changing the setting's value in the
`discourse.conf` file.
Requests made with API keys are still rate limited by IP address and the
relevant global settings that control API keys rate limits.
Before this commit, Discourse's auth cookie (`_t`) was simply a 32 characters
string that Discourse used to lookup the current user from the database and the
cookie contained no additional information about the user. However, we had to
change the cookie content in this commit so we could identify the user from the
cookie without making a database query before the rate limits logic and avoid
introducing a bottleneck on busy sites.
Besides the 32 characters auth token, the cookie now includes the user id,
trust level and the cookie's generation date, and we encrypt/sign the cookie to
prevent tampering.
Internal ticket number: t54739.
The previous excerpt was a simple truncated raw message. Starting with
this commit, the raw content of the draft is cooked and an excerpt is
extracted from it. The logic for extracting the excerpt mimics the the
`ExcerptParser` class, but does not implement all functionality, being
a much simpler implementation.
The two draft controllers have been merged into one and the /draft.json
route has been changed to /drafts.json to be consistent with the other
route names.
When the Forever option is selected for suspending a user, the user is suspended for 1000 years. Without customizing the site’s text, this time period is displayed to the user in the suspension email that is sent to the user, and if the user attempts to log back into the site. Telling someone that they have been suspended for 1000 years seems likely to come across as a bad attempt at humour.
This PR special case messages when a user suspended or silenced forever.
Over the years we accrued many spelling mistakes in the code base.
This PR attempts to fix spelling mistakes and typos in all areas of the code that are extremely safe to change
- comments
- test descriptions
- other low risk areas
This PR allows invitations to be used when the DiscourseConnect SSO is enabled for a site (`enable_discourse_connect`) and local logins are disabled. Previously invites could not be accepted with SSO enabled simply because we did not have the code paths to handle that logic.
The invitation methods that are supported include:
* Inviting people to groups via email address
* Inviting people to topics via email address
* Using invitation links generated by the Invite Users UI in the /my/invited/pending route
The flow works like this:
1. User visits an invite URL
2. The normal invitation validations (redemptions/expiry) happen at that point
3. We store the invite key in a secure session
4. The user clicks "Accept Invitation and Continue" (see below)
5. The user is redirected to /session/sso then to the SSO provider URL then back to /session/sso_login
6. We retrieve the invite based on the invite key in secure session. We revalidate the invitation. We show an error to the user if it is not valid. An additional check here for invites with an email specified is to check the SSO email matches the invite email
7. If the invite is OK we create the user via the normal SSO methods
8. We redeem the invite and activate the user. We clear the invite key in secure session.
9. If the invite had a topic we redirect the user there, otherwise we redirect to /
Note that we decided for SSO-based invites the `must_approve_users` site setting is ignored, because the invite is a form of pre-approval, and because regular non-staff users cannot send out email invites or generally invite to the forum in this case.
Also deletes some group invite checks as per https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/12353
The 'Discourse SSO' protocol is being rebranded to DiscourseConnect. This should help to reduce confusion when 'SSO' is used in the generic sense.
This commit aims to:
- Rename `sso_` site settings. DiscourseConnect specific ones are prefixed `discourse_connect_`. Generic settings are prefixed `auth_`
- Add (server-side-only) backwards compatibility for the old setting names, with deprecation notices
- Copy `site_settings` database records to the new names
- Rename relevant translation keys
- Update relevant translations
This commit does **not** aim to:
- Rename any Ruby classes or methods. This might be done in a future commit
- Change any URLs. This would break existing integrations
- Make any changes to the protocol. This would break existing integrations
- Change any functionality. Further normalization across DiscourseConnect and other auth methods will be done separately
The risks are:
- There is no backwards compatibility for site settings on the client-side. Accessing auth-related site settings in Javascript is fairly rare, and an error on the client side would not be security-critical.
- If a plugin is monkey-patching parts of the auth process, changes to locale keys could cause broken error messages. This should also be unlikely. The old site setting names remain functional, so security-related overrides will remain working.
A follow-up commit will be made with a post-deploy migration to delete the old `site_settings` rows.
This moves all the rate limiting for user second factor (based on `params[:second_factor_token]` existing) to the one place, which rate limits by IP and also by username if a user is found.
25563357 moved the logout redirect logic from the client-side to the server-side. Unfortunately the login_required check was lost during the refactoring which meant that non-login-required sites would redirect to `/login` after redirect, and immediately restart the login process. Depending on the SSO implementation, that can make it impossible for users to log out cleanly.
This commit restores the login_required check, and prevents the potential redirect loop.
- Display reason for validation error when logging in via an authenticator
- Fix email validation handling for 'Discourse SSO', and add a spec
Previously, validation errors (e.g. blocked or already-taken emails) would raise a generic error with no useful information.
Extracted commonly used spec helpers into spec/support/uploads_helpers.rb, removed unused stubs and let definitions. Makes it easier to write new S3-related specs without copy and pasting setup steps from other specs.
This commit prevents a 500 error from occurring if someone is trying to
setup their discourse instance as a sso provider and they don't pass in
a `return_sso_url` in their payload.
1. Total 6 attempts per day per user
2. Total of 5 per unique email/login that is not found per hour
3. If an admin blocks an IP that IP can not request a reset
Timezone is guessed by moment.js if unset upon a normal login, but was not when
logging in via an email link. This adds logic to update a guessed
timezone upon email login so timezones don't end up blank.
Previously we were only updating group membership when a user record was
first created in an SSO setting.
This corrects it so we also update it if SSO changes the email
This commit adds support for an optional "logout" parameter in the
payload of the /session/sso_provider endpoint. If an SSO Consumer
adds a "logout=true" parameter to the encoded/signed "sso" payload,
then Discourse will treat the request as a logout request instead
of an authentication request. The logout flow works something like
this:
* User requests logout at SSO-Consumer site (e.g., clicks "Log me out!"
on web browser).
* SSO-Consumer site does whatever it does to destroy User's session on
the SSO-Consumer site.
* SSO-Consumer then redirects browser to the Discourse sso_provider
endpoint, with a signed request bearing "logout=true" in addition
to the usual nonce and the "return_sso_url".
* Discourse destroys User's discourse session and redirects browser back
to the "return_sso_url".
* SSO-Consumer site does whatever it does --- notably, it cannot request
SSO credentials from Discourse without the User being prompted to login
again.
Previously if local login via email was disabled because of the site setting or because SSO was enabled, we were raising a 500 error. We now raise a 403 error instead; we shouldn't raise 500 errors on purpose, instead keeping that code for unhandled errors. It doesn't make sense in the context of what we are validating either to raise a 500.
* When we refactored away the admin-login route we introduced a bug where admins could not log into an SSO enabled site, because of a check in the email_login route that disallowed this.
* Allow admin to get around this check.
